The BBC tells the British story better than anyone

It would be perverse of the government to deny this inclusive, forward-thinking service the funds to ensure its future

David Clark
Wednesday November 8, 2006
The Guardian

Just how seriously does Labour value the public realm? There was a time when it would have seemed odd even to inquire. But that was before the mania for marketisation took hold. It is a question that is about to be answered, at least in part, thanks to an imminent decision on whether to grant the BBC's request for an increase in the licence fee of 1.8% above inflation for the period to 2013.

The BBC's original bid a year ago caused a predictable storm of outrage, with commercial rivals and the rightwing press denouncing "greedy auntie"; but the position of the government has been harder to gauge. Labour has traditionally shared the view of Chris Smith, a former culture secretary, that the BBC is "the UK's most important cultural institution"; but long before the Hutton inquiry the New Labour milieu included people for whom the idea that a public corporation might be capable of doing something better than the private sector was ideologically unacceptable. The strategic alliance with Rupert Murdoch has been another crucial source of anti-BBC influence. Certainly no one at Television Centre is taking a positive outcome for granted.

This is a pity because by any reasonable standards the BBC has a very good story to tell. In agreeing its current funding settlement, the government set out a number of ambitious targets: to improve output, shift more production outside London, increase educational content and pioneer the shift to digital services. Moreover, three-quarters of this was to be financed from existing resources. In return, the BBC has done everything that was asked of it and more.

In terms of the quality of its output, it is hard to recall a time when the BBC has been creatively stronger. Schedules that used to groan under the strain of repeats and imports are now full of popular and original British programmes. A particularly strong line-up of new drama, from Spooks and Life on Mars to Bleak House and Jane Eyre, has seen the BBC scoop plaudits and awards here and abroad. The same is true of its comedy.

The BBC has even managed the impossible by reviving light entertainment with shows such as Strictly Come Dancing. Add to this the fact that it continues to be a world-beater in factual programming, with Planet Earth following the success of Blue Planet, and you have a broadcaster at the top of its game in the quality and the range of its programme-making.

It is doing just as well at meeting its other priorities. The fact that its most successful recent show, Dr Who (and now its spin-off, Torchwood), is produced in Cardiff shows a real commitment to devolving programme-making. Its online educational services, Bitesize and Jam, provide free, high-quality learning tools that wouldn't otherwise be available. (Bitesize is now used by 70% of students revising for GCSEs.)

But it is probably in driving the shift to digital broadcasting that the BBC is making its most important contribution. It's no exaggeration to say that without the BBC's willingness to salvage terrestrial digital broadcasting with the launch of Freeview, it would be impossible to envisage digital switchover on any foreseeable timetable, let alone the government's target of 2012. It is only through the licence fee that it has been possible to provide a platform and content sufficiently attractive and affordable to reach the necessary levels of voluntary take-up. It's no use saying that the market could have done this. The market tried and failed, and it was left to the BBC to pick up the pieces.

The alternative was a digital divide between those who could afford to access new content through cable and satellite subscriptions, and those who could not. In the context of a knowledge-intensive economy, the consequences for social justice, employment and growth would have been deleterious. Only a public-service broadcaster, committed to the principle of universality before commercial return, could have charted the right path to Britain's digital future.

Since the BBC is often portrayed as a cash-soaked bureaucratic monster, it is essential to note that three-quarters of this improvement and expansion has been paid for out of efficiency savings and that the BBC is in the process of shedding around one-fifth of its staff. In the period of the current licence fee, it has established an impressive record of excellence and efficiency. Ministers talk about using it as the model for other parts of the public sector, including the NHS.

It would be perverse indeed if, despite that implicit vote of confidence, the government were to recoil from the funding decisions needed to ensure the BBC's continued success. The task of digital switchover is far from complete and will require substantial investment by the BBC to upgrade transmitters and reach its target of 98.5% coverage - including costs it is shouldering on behalf of the industry as a whole. Other developments, like the relocation of production to Salford and the provision of on-demand services, require additional resources. Again, the BBC is committed to paying through efficiency savings, but it cannot reasonably be expected to do this all on its own.

As the BBC accepts, the existing level of service could be maintained with a below-inflation settlement. But the result would not be a public-service broadcaster fit for the digital age. BSkyB and other commercial rivals would like nothing better than to see the BBC stagnate through technological and creative obsolescence, leaving them to dominate the market. That's why they have lobbied for a licence fee designed to ensure precisely that.

It is essential that the government resists their efforts. Digital broadcasting expands choice and makes it easier for consumers to get what they want. But as audiences fragment and commercial channels compete for advertising by targeting "key" demographics, it is more important than ever to have a public-service broadcaster capable of producing output with broad appeal.

Nations are often described as "imagined communities" in which bonds are forged between large groups of people who never meet. This requires a popular medium through which the national story can be told and understood. At a time when forces of social and ethnic fragmentation are becoming stronger, we need institutions capable of fostering a distinctive and inclusive sense of Britishness. The BBC still does this far better than anyone else. The question is whether Labour really believes that it's what works that counts.

· David Clark is a former Labour government adviser.

Dkclark@aol.com